I wasn't taking offense, sorry I didn't mean it that way. I was just saying that if someone doesn't s/n doesn't make them irresponsible is what I meant.
I guess my questions is why is a dog who is intact more likely to bite?
I know you were not speaking in absolutes, but saying things like more or less likely is still saying that one has a tendency over the other and basically as it reads it going to be more likely to happen, I just don't think it is true in general. In certain situations, a dominant male with temperament disorder around a female in heat and child gets bit. A neutered male wouldn't be frustrated and trying to get the female to breed with him who keeps pushing him and see the kid as a threat and have a temperament issue that escalates. So I do believe dogs with certain temperament problems might be more inclined to bite in certain situations then those who are not. Males as a whole I don't think so. A stable dog with proper handling and training who is intact is not going to be more likely to bite you then one that is not. I've been bit and know people who have been bit/attacked by both intact and s/n animals. I have been bit by an intact Chow and a neutered Poodle.
I think you proved the point that dogs owned by irresponsible people are probably more likely to bite and less likely to be neutered. To me doesn't translate to intact males are more likely to bite, it just happens that more irresponsible people own intact males.
I know what you mean about irresponsible people and all, but I just wanted to make it clear (about some responsible owners have intact dogs) and didn't mean to cause controversy.
The only kind of attack people have to worry about from my intact males is being licked and rolled on.







Reply With Quote

Bookmarks